IMO it would be much better for the country to have the republicans control all 3 branches...things will finally get done for the better.

The Republicans will cut spending, shrink the government, start paying off the debt to bring the deficit down and eventually balance the budget, not raise taxes, repeal obama care and a host of other initiatives to get this country economically vibrant again.

I think your conclusions of what happened during his presidency are inaccurate.

How did he shrink government? Our military was enormous during his reign of terror, the country did not explode economically, we had high unemployment for most of his presidency and he ushered in our current debt slavery..

When the last republican was in office, how did we fare with shrinking government and reducing debt?

We bubbled housing and the stock market off artificially low rates and stupid tax policies, we ran up huge debt tossing money over to Iraq and was responsible for the deaths of millions (our soldiers and Iraqi/other citizens and soldiers).

I think your conclusions of what happened during his presidency are inaccurate.

How did he shrink government? Our military was enormous during his reign of terror, the country did not explode economically, we had high unemployment for most of his presidency and he ushered in our current debt slavery..

When the last republican was in office, how did we fare with shrinking government and reducing debt?

We bubbled housing and the stock market off artificially low rates and stupid tax policies, we ran up huge debt tossing money over to Iraq and was responsible for the deaths of millions (our soldiers and Iraqi/other citizens and soldiers).

I think your conclusions of what happened during his presidency are inaccurate

How old were you when Reagan was president?

-----------------------------------------------------------

No they are not inaccurate, but rather they are accurate. You have a computer go check it out. You'll see that historians regard the Reagan presidency as being a success. He used the trickle down economics strategy that worked!!

I was old enough to vote for the man...the great president that he turned out to be.

I think your conclusions of what happened during his presidency are inaccurate

How old were you when Reagan was president?

-----------------------------------------------------------

No they are not inaccurate, but rather they are accurate. You have a computer go check it out. You'll see that historians regard the Reagan presidency as being a success. He used the trickle down economics strategy that worked!!

I was old enough to vote for the man...the great president that he turned out to be.

I grew up during his reign of terror, so my conclusions are accurate..now back then the "truth" was tougher to come by versus now, but history has shown if you are not wearing Repub blinders, the damage Reagan did was likely the worst in our countries history.

grew up during his reign of terror, so my conclusions are accurate..now back then the "truth" was tougher to come by versus now, but history has shown if you are not wearing Repub blinders, the damage Reagan did was likely the worst in our countries history.

Reagan won the White House by promising to get the government off the backs of the people. This would be accomplished through deregulation and tax relief.

Government would be reined in through budget cuts, while America's power and prestige abroad would be restored, with the first step being a strengthening of the military. Reaganomics led to economic recovery after the Great Inflation of the 1970s.

For thirty years before Reagan became president, federal spending on domestic programs increased, doubling in the 1950s, doubling again in the 1960s, and nearly doubling yet again in the 1970s.

The Reagan administration sought to stop the growth of government and at the same time stimulate a struggling economy by slowing the growth of domestic spending and cutting taxes.

Due in large part to the tight money policies of the Federal Reserve (policies put into place to reduce inflation), the economy went into recession in 1981.

While federal spending on social services increased to provide for the poor and unemployed during these hard times, tax revenues declined. In 1982, the budget deficit topped $110 billion. In 1986 it was $203 billion.

By the latter year the nation was well into a 96-month-long economic recovery during which 20 million new jobs were created -- the longest peacetime expansion in modern American history.

Inflation had fallen, as had interest rates. The stock market tripled in value. Unemployment was down. Government revenues doubled.

A criticism of Reagan's policies is that they created a situation in which the rich got richer while the poor got poorer.

However, a 1990 Bureau of the Census study revealed that all income groups realized gains from 1980 to 1989.

Average real income rose by 15%. Average household income for the lowest fifth was $6,836 in 1980 and $7,372 in 1989.

By the end of the Reagan presidency, a high level of public approval (63 percent of the nation) indicated that the administration had recovered its image among the American public because of the perceived restoration of America's power, prosperity and national pride.

If you believe people seek power to help others, and are of a rightward bent, then you're probably like old sirjohndrake here, hoping for a militant authoritarian takeover.

If like myself, you believe that people seek power, because they are psychotic, power hungry, megalomaniacs that don't have trouble sleeping at night after raping entire generations of the citizenry, and are corruptible beyond our wildest imagination, then you ought have a healthy fear of any political party with an unchecked, free pass.

I'm sure the Reagan Era was great if you were a rich male that happened to work at a defense contractor.

Not so much if you were a poor young person that came from a bad area, especially if you are a minority(darn I sound like Scalabrine now)

Anyways, Reagan did a great job of appealing to his voters and the voting base in general.

What I find funny is a lot of the people that bash Obama for increasing the national deficit are the same people that hail Reagan for his trickle down economics policy and his defense spending......which by the way increased the national deficit.

the massive inflation from the 70's was a beast and it got controlled.

reagan never had a congress on plane with him which may have limited what could be accomplished.

gridlock ensures the status quo but our current status quo is a trillion five more expenditures than take ins.

not good at all.

i fear WAR,, huh, good god ya'll....what is it good for?

Republicans would hold sway over America’s purchased NATO marionettes, although these marionette nations are besieged with derivative debt struggles beget to them by the NY financial establishment and through the sovereign debt troubles, a number of which avoided exposure courtesy of an infamous NY financial institution. Regardless of the administration, either party will contest China’s economic superiority through a militarized foreign policy.

IMO it would be much better for the country to have the republicans control all 3 branches...things will finally get done for the better.

The Republicans will cut spending, shrink the government, start paying off the debt to bring the deficit down and eventually balance the budget, not raise taxes, repeal obama care and a host of other initiatives to get this country economically vibrant again.

I literally LOL'd at this... and this is coming from a guy who is not at all a fan of the Democrats.

If you believe people seek power to help others, and are of a rightward bent, then you're probably like old sirjohndrake here, hoping for a militant authoritarian takeover.

If like myself, you believe that people seek power, because they are psychotic, power hungry, megalomaniacs that don't have trouble sleeping at night after raping entire generations of the citizenry, and are corruptible beyond our wildest imagination, then you ought have a healthy fear of any political party with an unchecked, free pass.

Divided government is a good thing, not a bad thing. I'd rather have gridlock in Washington than unanimity any day of the week. The less damage those idiots can do, the better

Divided government is a good thing, not a bad thing. I'd rather have gridlock in Washington than unanimity any day of the week. The less damage those idiots can do, the better

While I agree, it is also a very sad statement. If the best we can hope for is political gridlock what does that say for our future? We will never be able fix our situation.

We knowingly vote candidates who do not represent the people's interests, it seems everyone is satisfied picking the "lesser of two evils."

If we continue maintaining the status quo the system eventually collapses. Something is going to have to give eventually. Essentially we are just waiting for the inevitable collapse then hope the mindset changes and we can rebuild from there? The future sounds pretty bleak to me.

Activities offered by advertising links to other sites may be deemed an illegal activity in certain jurisdictions. Viewers are specifically warned that they should inquire into the legality of participating in any games and/or activities offered by such other sites. The owner of this website assumes no responsibility for the actions by and makes no representation or endorsement of any of these games and/or activities offered by the advertiser. As a condition of viewing this website viewers agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from the viewer’s participation in any of the games and/or activities offered by the advertiser.